160, and the reason is that all my work is tripod mounted so the slower shutter speeds compared to those with the 400 are irrelevant. As mentioned above, the only time I've used the 400 instead of the 160 was shooting indoors where the slower shutter speeds of the 160 might've captured motion blur in the subject.Thanks for that. Given a choice are you guys shooting more Portra 160 or Portra 400 and what are your reasons? Thanks for Lachlan_Young for his response re: color.
Ektar 100 is my favorite film because of color vibrance and grainlessness. Portra 160 is my #2 favorite film for its color rendition. Yes, use a tripod. Portra 400 is very flexible; I normally expose at EI800 and develop normally or push one stop. I expose Portra 160 at box speed and process normally. Same with Ektar.
4x5 Portra 160
That's what I like about this film!Portra 160 is pretty much dead neutral ...
Complements my own experiences.... 400 is a somewhat warmer & little more saturated ...
I'm not so experienced with using Portra 800 - I tend to use it @ISO640 - comes out nice - no problems with the shadows.... Portra 800 tends toward brownish and dark purple in the shadows in my experience, not appealing to me...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?